Saturday, January 24, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information - an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
Obama's move, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.
Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign.
Clinton said Friday evening that for seven years Bush's policy made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and health care services. "Rather than limiting women's ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families," Clinton said.
In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
Obama, in his statement, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world."
"We are confident that under the new president's direction, the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women's reproductive health and rights worldwide," Obaid said in a statement issued at U.N. headquarters in New York.
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year, but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.
Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."
"Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas - something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.


Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
LDM1982 says...
He's got us paying for abortions OVERSEAS?! We can't even take care of our own people, but we can afford to kill babies in other countries. What's wrong with this picture?
January 23, 2009 at 5:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
notsomuch says...
to clarify, the ban was on international groups who provide or mention abortions even if they used OTHER FUNDING to do so. the lift on the ban does not mean we are paying for abortions, it means we will give money to groups that provide information on them as well as provide other services such as birth control and adoption services.
January 23, 2009 at 6:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
With all due respect to "notsomuch" artificial contraceptives, which will now be promoted even heavier due to Obama's actions, are often nothing more than abortifacients in that they can cause the chemical abortion of a newly conceived human life. Furthermore there has yet to be a instance in history where the promotion of artificial "birth control" has been anything more than be a tool to further advance the sexual revolution and all of it's associated ills from abortion through pedophilia to the abuse of women. Artificial birth control is nothing more than the evil cousin of abortion and the tool that promoters of such debauchery, like Planned Parenthood, use to foist their way into countries and take our tax money from important needs such as water purifiers and malaria treatments in order to hand out more birth control pills and condoms. Enough already!
January 23, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gingersnapp says...
Oh my Newman, you are blaming all sexual deviancy on birth control? Pedophilia was caused by birth control? That insults everyone who have planned their families by its use.
Do you even realize how many lives are saved in third world countries by educating them on the use of condoms. There are thousands of people dying of aids because condoms were cut off by the Bush Mexico City Policy. These were clinics who tried to avoid abortions by offering birth control as an alternative and condoms as a preventative. One part of the planned parenthood programs of these clinics was the abortion choice, but there is much more in their education on all forms of birth control and condoms as a prevention to stds and hiv aids and pregnancy.
And would you also want Griswold overturned in America, so that states could pass laws against Americans legally being able to use birth control?
January 23, 2009 at 11:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
notsomuch says...
newman, i cannot even begin to tell you how wrong you are. it's utterly amazing. and pathetic.
January 24, 2009 at 12:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trixie says...
Newman, may I suggest that you take a more positive approach to reducing the number of abortions worldwide? You can be pro human rights and human dignity, education, adoption, economic opportunity, and work for equal rights for women worldwide. Once you embrace those principles you will be truly, and effectively, "pro-life".
Plus you'll be a nicer, happier person.
January 24, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
Setting aside emotions let's return to the facts:
- Every societal indicator of decline from child abuse through pornography to divorce has drastically increased since the advent of artificial birth control in the 1960's. With a record like who wouldn't want Griswold to joint Dred Scott in the ash bin of history?
- Note the condemnation of "artificial" birth control. There is nothing immoral about birth control in itself which is just as effective when natural methods are utilized and doesn't harm women or their unborn child in the process.
- Those countries, particularly in Africa such as Uganda, which have focused upon abstinence to battle AIDS have had striking success while those pushing condoms, such are South Africa, have the highest infection rates on earth. Condoms are no more effective at preventing AIDS than low-tar cigarettes are in preventing lung cancer and I don't see any libertines advocating for them.
- I agree with everything you cite Trixie. Just don't forget to also advocate for the rights of your unborn sisters as well.
January 24, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trixie says...
Michael, Michael, Michael, did you not notice that the article was about international organizations? Within that context worldwide this and worldwide that is totally appropriate ;-)
January 24, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
notsomuch says...
abstinence only education does not work newton. read some studies. you can't be anti-abortion AND anti-birth control...it makes no sense.
and child abuse probably wasn't any more prevalent once birth control came onto the scene, more people felt more comfortable reporting it.
and as for your comment, "Condoms are no more effective at preventing AIDS than low-tar cigarettes are in preventing lung cancer..." that's just plain retarded. have you ever taken a sex ed class or did you sit out that day? jeeze.
January 24, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
I hope this is not like a surprise to anyone.
It's a moot point now and for the next four years, at least.
Let's pick a battle we have a chance of winning.....
January 24, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
unknown_user says...
MichaelH = "The argument was made to blame our adoption process and the hoops one must jump through. Good! We don't want just anyone to adopt a child, but I'll tell you what, these people should go and visit an American orphanage just once. Maybe explain to those kids why you adopted a foreign child over one in your backyard. And all because it saved some time, no less."
This is very untrue, my sister-in-law and her husband adopted a baby from Guatemala 3 years ago and it did not save time, it took them a over a year to get their baby.
Why are you people freaking out over birth control?! Get over it! Maybe some people want to have a sexual relationship with their spouse or partner without the burden of children. You can complain all you want but the Supreme Court is never going to overturn Roe v. Wade and the government isn't going to overturn a ruling and remove birth control either!
How can you even say that you're for women's rights when you're against abortions and birth control, shouldn't every individual woman be able to decide for herself whether or not she wants to use these methods?!
January 24, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trixie says...
Oh Newman, you big silly, correlation does not prove causation in any scientific sense.
January 24, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )